Zhuangzi had an interpretation of Daoism that was highly imaginative,

Agreed. This is a tricky question.

(A) Zhuangzi had an interpretation of Daoism that was highly imaginative, but in terms of a lasting impact on the course of Chinese civilization this was not as influential as the interpretation of Confucianism of Mengzi, who was his contemporary ------ 1. use of ‘this’ seems colloquial. 2. ‘Confucianism of Mengzi’ is unidiomatic. This should be by Mengzi, instead.

(B) Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism had a lasting impact on the course of Chinese civilization, whereas his contemporary Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not do this --- 1. This is colloquial. 2. More importantly, there is a shift in the meaning.

(C) Zhuangzi had a highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism, but this interpretation had less of an impact on the course of Chinese civilization than his contemporary Mengzi, whose interpretation of Confucianism was more influential --- than his contemporary Mengzi is a wrong comparison.

(D) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism --- Correct comparison and idiom. Avoids the colloquial ‘this’

(E) In terms of lasting impact, Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism influenced Chinese civilization more than the highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism by Mengzi’s contemporary Zhuangzi –---a verb ‘did’ should be inserted after ‘than’, in order to effectively compare the action of Mengzi’s interpretation with the action of Zhuangzi’s interpretation.

_________________

Hi mikemcgarry,

If I were to get this Q, I would first eliminate Unidiomatic -- "Zhuangzi had an interpretation of Daoism "..
It may be OK to say- he had a dog.
He had a wish ... still be OK

But here the interpretation is HIS own and he is not keeping someone's else interpretation, so the CORRECT construction should use POSSESIVE- Zhuangzi's..

Using this to eliminate, we can home down to B, D and E..

1)Now in this three, E can be straightway eliminated for awkward structure-more than the highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism by Mengzi’s contemporary Zhuangzi- as it clearly does not parallel-Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism. AND ofcourse the second part is missing on 'DID'
2)B requires HAVE in second part rather than DO THIS -- for parallelism..

Having said that and agreeing we do use -- he had ___.. would not POSSESIVE form be better.

_________________

Dear chetan2u,
My friend, expressing yourself in all bold, like expressing yourself in all caps, is considered rude in some circles. It is considered the equivalent of yelling and screaming incourteously, which may not be your intent.

FWIW, the structure "to have an interpretation" is not idiomatically incorrect. It is a bit long-winded and indirect, so it may be viewed as rhetorically problematic, especially in this sentence, but certainly there would be sentences in which it would be correct. For example:
"Early twentieth century conductors had an interpretation of Bach's music that sounds ponderous today."

Just because something is intrinsically mine doesn't automatically mean that the possessive is the only way to express it and that the verb "to have" is inappropriate. it is very natural to say
someone has a temper
someone has an attitude
someone has aches and pains
someone has an illness
someone has strange ideas about something
someone has a profound sense of faith
someone has strong emotions
someone has a deep sensitivity
etc. etc.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi Mike,
Ofcourse, it is not meant to be rude..
again I was about to write 'rude' in Capital to emphasize on 'rude' that it is not the case, but left it..

It is done atleast by me, to emphasize on 'certain keywords' that should not be missed by someone who is short on time..

Any way, I just wanted to enquire that eliminating 2 choices on this aspect, as I, too, feel it is not exactly Unidiomatic but inferior to possessive form for sure, is Ok or not and were these choices written by you keeping these choices in mind.

_________________

Hi Mike,

I was able to eliminate ABC-and ended up selecting E. In D, is it correct to say 'his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation'. Should it not be his contemporary Mengzi?

Zhuangzi had an interpretation of Daoism that was highly imaginative, but in terms of a lasting impact on the course of Chinese civilization this was not as influential as the interpretation of Confucianism of Mengzi, who was his contemporary.

(A) Zhuangzi had an interpretation of Daoism that was highly imaginative, but in terms of a lasting impact on the course of Chinese civilization this was not as influential as the interpretation of Confucianism of Mengzi, who was his contemporary - "that" is referring to Daoism instead of interpretation - INCORRECT

(B) Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism had a lasting impact on the course of Chinese civilization, whereas his contemporary Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not do this - did not do what ? "This" is an avoidable pronoun on GMAT -INCORRECT

(C) Zhuangzi had a highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism, but this interpretation had less of an impact on the course of Chinese civilization than his contemporary Mengzi, whose interpretation of Confucianism was more influential - Interpretation is compared to Mengzi -INCORRECT

(D) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism - CORRECT

(E) In terms of lasting impact, Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism influenced Chinese civilization more than the highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism by Mengzi’s contemporary Zhuangzi - did should come after Zhuangzi - X influenced more than ... Y did/influenced -INCORRECT

Dear KS15,

My friend, I don't know whether you noticed that (E), in addition to some rhetorical difficulties, creates an illogical comparison. You would have to read the OE and the discussion in the original post to understand this. Follow the link in my original post in this thread.

It is 100% correct to use a non-possessive appositive to modify a noun in the possessive. Thus, "his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation" is perfectly correct. It would be far more long-winded and indirect to say, "the interpretation of his contemporary Mengzi."

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi Mike,

The article is full of tricky examples.

I have question about the phrase 'his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation'. I know that 'his' refer to 'Zhuangzi' but the name itself 'Zhuangzi' is mentioned in possessive form. I mean to use 'his', it should mention Zhuangzi clearly to be a correct reference.

Do I miss something? Can you you help?

is "had" in E correct?

pls, explain.

Dear Mo2men,
Great question, my friend! I am happy to help!

This is a very tricky rule about pronouns and their antecedents. In general, a noun in the possessive cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun, but the exception is that an noun in the possessive can be the antecedent of a possessive pronoun.
e.g. Mozart's piano concerti are performed more frequently than his wind concerti."
That's what's going on with Zhuanghi's name in (D).

Does this make sense?


Dear thangvietnam

My friend, the word "had" appears nowhere in (E). I would suggest that you strive to ask more detailed questions. Explain exactly what your understanding is and why you are confused.

Mike
_________________

Thanks a lot.
It does make sense

Dear Mike,
first of all thank you for the question.
In option D , doesn't it wrongly imply that Zhuangzi’s contempory = Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism
Zhuangzi’s contempory is Mengzi and NOT Mengzi’s interpretation .
What am I missing?
Maybe if Contempory was in the possesive form then it would refer to Mengzi.
Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary 's Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism.

Please forgive my limited knowledge,just trying to learn by playing Devils advocate.
As always thank you in advance for your guidance.
_________________

Dear stne,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you ask what you are missing. You are missing the deep understanding of English that comes from a consistent habit of reading. Your conclusion here reflects thinking about grammar in a logical, almost mathematical, way. Language doesn't really work that way: grammar is not mathematical. Language is a living thing, and you have to experience that living thing in a consistent way, every single day. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

This specific feature is a very common feature in ordinary spoken and written English. When a name is preceded by a title or another description, and the name itself is in the possessive, then the words before the name do not have to be changed in any way.
. . . the Vice-President Calhoun's view of slavery . . .
. . . my friend Chris' blog article . . . .
. . . the great hitter Ted Williams' last at-bat . . .
In all cases, the words before the name are understood, unambiguously, to refer to the name itself, despite the fact that the name is in the possessive.

My friend, this is an exceptionally common construction. With all due respect, your question here reveals an extremely logical and analytic view of grammar but relatively inexperience with how language is actually used in the real world, and that is combination that the GMAT SC punishes over and over again. It's so important not to approach the GMAT SC in a "rule-based" way, but with the rich experience of having spent months cultivating a habit of reading.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi mikemcgarry
I eliminated this option because of this part of the option which states 'whereas his contemporary Zhuangzi’s interpretation'
It would be illogical to say that his contemporary is Zhuangzi's interpretation.

This was my line of reasoning.
Could you tell me if I'm right?

Dear sarathgopinath,

My friend, see my post in this thread from yesterday, in which I just discussed this very issue. My friend, part of due diligence involves reading everything in the thread, so you know whether what you want to ask has already been discussed. This is best way to show that respect the time and the energy of the experts on this site.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi mikemcgarry

I'm sorry for not having read the thread properly. Thanks for your time.
I still have one doubt in option D.
(D) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism.

Why do we need a 'had' in D?

Isn't did better?
I did not have as much money as you did.
I'm sure I'm missing out something here. Please tell me what is that I'm missing.
Thanks again!

Is the usage of 'Had' correct in option D? Can someone explain

Dear sarathgopinath & santro789,

I'm happy to respond.

The short answer is that, yes, the "had" is correct and yes, we need it.

The placement of "had" is a somewhat more sophisticated structure. A more standard placement of the verb is after the subject, but here, it begins the comparative clause for clarity.

What is it making clear? The difference between a subjective comparison and an objective comparison. You see, sarathgopinath, your sentence about the money is not a good example here, because it doesn't capture this ambiguity. Consider the following sentence.
1) I like opera more than Chris.
That's an ambiguous statement, by itself. It could mean either of the following, either of which would be correct:
2) I like opera more than Chris does. (A subjective comparison: Chris is compared to the subject of the sentence.)
3) I like opera more than I like Chris. (An objective comparison: Chris is compared to the object of the sentence.)

Without the word "had," version (D) would have this ambiguity.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Thanks mikemcgarry
That helped!